Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Irish Republican Army/Preparation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

• I think the current wording on this page should be changed. Calling people deletionists can be considered offensive. Astrotrain 23:58, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Nobody is called a deletionist. Does it mention anyone by name, or even by implication? One Night In Hackney 00:01, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

It violates WP:CIVIL Astrotrain 00:09, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Please explain exactly who it is being incivil to? One Night In Hackney 00:12, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

It makes implications about those commenting on AFDs- it should be removed- I kindly ask that it is. Astrotrain 00:23, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I decline, and I kindly ask that you stay away from a sub page of a project that you are not a member of (and arguably vehemently opposed to) so that you cannot possibly be offended by it again, unless there is some legitimate reason for you to be looking at the page in question? One Night In Hackney 00:25, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

There is no reason to say it- as it has been pointed out it is causing offensive, it should be removed. And anyone can edit this page- you don't have to be a member of the Project. In the interests of not offending, and not wishing to be seen to be taunting or attacking others- this should be removed. Astrotrain 23:43, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, anyone can edit this page if they have a legitimate reason to do so. You have yet to provide a legitimate reason, and have constantly prevaricated. As I said earlier, if for some bizarre reason you find it offensive then do not visit this page, I asked for a legitimate reason but none has been forthcoming I must therefore assume there is no legitimate reason for you to visit the page. One Night In Hackney 23:49, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't find it offensive, but it's perhaps not the most appropriate way to express things. I've reworded and added some extra info, which I hope is acceptable. It's advisable to keep everything squeaky-clean, especially when a contentious subject is involved, to avoid tempting anyone into WP:MFD, so I think Astrotrain has done you a service here. He is right that anyone can edit pages, provided of course they are doing so for a sound reason. It may be an idea to "field test" articles in the sandbox, before moving them into article space, by inviting comments by users such as Astrotrain so you can address any concerns raised, if necessary. Tyrenius 02:48, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I've also added a note on WP:BLP given some issues that have arisen in this area for these type of articles. Astrotrain 17:35, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

It's unnecessary and I've removed it. Firstly there's no actual proof that WP:BLP applies, and given your previous history of trying to use the policy incorrectly (Ivor Bell) I'm not taking just your word for it. Secondly, it's wholly irrelevant. Articles are being written from sources, not made up from thin air. Therefore everything that is being written is sourced. One Night In Hackney_IRA 17:41, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:BLP applies to all material about living persons. Per BLP: "This policy applies equally to biographies of living persons and to biographical material about living persons in other articles". I think that this is particularly important in relation to articles on Republicans. Astrotrain 17:46, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

These are not articles, this is a preparation area. They become articles when moved into mainspace. Kindly provide evidence that it applies to preparation areas. One Night In Hackney_IRA 17:49, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I am quite sure it does apply here also. Astrotrain 17:51, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Well even if it does, the point is moot as articles are being created from sources. And as before, given your incorrect use of the policy before, I'm not content with taking your word for it. One Night In Hackney_IRA 17:53, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I am not aware of incorrectly using the policy? When was this? Astrotrain 17:55, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Ivor Bell. You claimed that a comment that reflected negatively on Thatcher was a violation of WP:BLP, but this was not the case. WP:BLP applies to poorly sourced or unsourced information, it does not give you carte blanche to remove sourced negative information. Whether the comment in question belonged in the article was an editorial decision, not a WP:BLP decision. One Night In Hackney_IRA 17:58, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

The source was not neutral and could not be verified Astrotrain 20:56, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes it was neutral, it was written by an unbiased journalist. It could be easily verified, the author, title of the book and ISBN number were provided. "Not verified" does not mean "available online", so you are incorrect. One Night In Hackney_IRA 21:00, 1 March 2007 (UTC)